>> >> I am not sure I agree with you. IESG has repeatedly asked for >> a single mandatory method. Otherwise IETF RFCs become an >> archive for peoples >> implementations. > >Both methods solve different problems, thus, they are mandatory. What are those different problems? As far as I can see they both solve the same problem which is link/node protection. > >> For proof just look at PWE3 ATM-ENCAP draft. >> > >I don't know much about IESG process, but I do know that the proof of >the pudding is in the eating. Proof of what? I said look at this draft to see that there are 4 methods for transporting ATM over mpls, out of which only one method is mandatory and 3 others are optional. Now what is the relevance of pudding/eating here? -Shahram > >- Ping >